N. N. MITHAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an order rejecting the application for appointment of guardian of minor children. ( 2 ) THE appellant is admittedly the grandfather of the minor children who are five in number and are aged between 4 to 12 years. The last two are sons aged 4 and 6 years, and the elder three are all daughters aged 12, 10 and 8 years respectively. At the time of filing of the application the children were admittedly living with their mother at the place of their maternal grandfather in a different city. The mother of the minor children is said to be 28 years old. ( 3 ) THE application for appointment of guardian was based on the allegation that the interest of the minors was not safe, in the hands of the mother who was intending to enter into a second marriage and that he had entered into an agreement with the third party to transfer the interest of the minors in some property and bad already received a substantial amount of sale consideration as advance. On the other hand the appellant as grand-father of the children claims to have deposited Rs. 50. 000/- for their benefit and it was alleged that he was interested in the welfare of the minor children and therefore, he should be appointed their guardian. ( 4 ) THE application has been rejected by the trial Court firstly on the ground that the appellant was already 72 years of age and secondly he had failed to show that the interest of the minors was not safe in the hands of the mother as she has not yet entered into the second marriage. ( 5 ) SRI S. R. Misra, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that the ground on which the application has been rejected were not proper particularly in view of the fact that the mother had not even put in appearance to defend. ( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellant, at some length we are of the opinion that the appeal has no force, merely because the mother had not put in appearance, it does not mean that the application for appointment of the guardian ought to have been allowed. ( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellant, at some length we are of the opinion that the appeal has no force, merely because the mother had not put in appearance, it does not mean that the application for appointment of the guardian ought to have been allowed. The Court is supposed to look to the welfare of the minor children and must be satisfied that a good ground exists, for removing the minor children from the custody of the mother and that the appellant was a proper person to be appointed their guardian. Admittedly the appellant is 72 years of age and there is nothing in the application to indicate as to how he will be in a position to look after the children who are between the ages 4 and 12 years only. Admittedly the minors are at present living with their mother and residing at Aligarh with their maternal grandparents. There is no allegation that the mother has already contracted the second marriage. The Court below is right in its view that if and when the mother may re-marry the question of appointment of a guardian can be determined afresh. At present the only material allegation made against the mother was that she had entered into an agreement with some party for sale of minors share in the property. Firstly, mere agreement to transfer the property of the minors does not amount to transfer of their share. The parties being governed by Muslim Law the mother is not entitled to transfer the minors share without obtaining leave from the Court. Admittedly no such proceedings have been instituted and till such time that a proper permission has been obtained from the District Judge, no valid transfer of minors interest in the property can be made. The apprehension in the mind of the appellant in this regard was therefore, totality misplaced. It is urged that the appellant is mainly interested in safeguarding the interest of the minors in the property. If that be so the appellant could have filed a suit for injunction against minors mother restraining her from transferring the minors share in the property. For appointment as guardian of the minors different considerations arise. It is urged that the appellant is mainly interested in safeguarding the interest of the minors in the property. If that be so the appellant could have filed a suit for injunction against minors mother restraining her from transferring the minors share in the property. For appointment as guardian of the minors different considerations arise. It is the interest of the minors which is of paramount importance and in this case we are not satisfied that the interest of the minors children of such tender again and particularly of female children can be safe in the bands if the appellant as compared to their mother. ( 7 ) A part from this the application is totally silent on the question whether the appellant seeking his appointment as guardian of the person or of the property or of both. For guardianship of the minors person certainly the appellant was not the proper person and the Court below rightly rejected the application. As regards the guardianship of property no ground has been made out in the application as to why the property could not be properly managed by the mother. Under these circumstances in our view the learned Additional District Judge was right in rejecting the application. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. ( 8 ) LET a certified copy of this order be given to the learned counsel on payment of requisite charges within a week. .